http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: C. MASILAMANI MUDALIAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE IDOL OF SRI SWAMINATHASWAMISWAMINATHASWAMI THIRUKOIL & O

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1697            JT 1996 (3)    98  1996 SCALE  (2)664

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the counsel on both sides.      The appeal  by special  leave arises  from the judgment dated July  2. 1992 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court rendered in LPA No.161 of 1988.      The appellants  are  the  alienness  from  Sellathachi, widow of  Somasundaram Pillai who had executed a will, Ex-A3 on 16.7.1950 bequeathing the suit properties to his wife and his cousin’s  widow Janakathache  mentioning  thereunder  as follows:      "Whereas I  have no  male or female      issues and  my wife (1) Sellathachi      and (2)  Janaka Thathachi,  wife of      my  senior   paternal  uncle’s  son      Thabasuya Pillai are living with me      and in my family and other than the      other 2 persons, there is none else      in my family. Amongst the aforesaid      persons,   the   aforesaid   Janaka      Thachi have  got  only  maintenance      relationship and  none else  in  my      family have  any right in the share      or have maintenance relationship. I      am   duty    bound    to    provide      maintenance for  the aforesaid  two      persons and I have no other duty to      be performed.  Therefore, after  my      lifetime,  the  under  mentioned  A      Schedule   property    valued    at      Rs.2000/shall   be   got   by   the      aforesaid two  persons and shall be      enjoyed in equal shares without any      right  to  alienate  the  same  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

    perform the  charities as per their      wish and after the lifetime of both      the       aforesaid        persons,      Govindasrasan  Pillai,   s/o  Peria      Pillai, of the aforesaid Eduvankudi      Village shall  be the  Trustee of A      Schedule  property   and  with  the      income  derived   from  the   under      mentioned land  shall  perform  the      Pooja to the idol at Swamimalai Sri      Swaminatha    Swami    Devasthanam,      Kumbekonam Taluk,  every  month  on      the Krithigai Satar Day and also do      the charity of power feeding on the      aforesaid day,  and also  shall put      up  the  lamps  every  day  at  the      Subramania Swamiar  Temple  of  the      aforesaid  Edavankudi  village  and      perform the  Pooja and  the Charity      of poor  feeding every month on the      Krithigai  Star   Day.  Further  in      respect of  the under  mentioned  B      Schedule   property    valued    at      Rs.1000/-, after  my lifetime,  the      aforesaid  Govinda   Rajan   Pillai      himself shall  be the  trustee  and      from the  revenue derived  from the      aforesaid  property  shall  perform      the Pooja  and the  charity of poor      feeding as  detailed above  to  the      aforesaid Swami Natha Swami and the      aforesaid Subramania Swamy. Amongst      the   aforesaid   Sellathachi   and      Janaka  Thachi,   if  one   of  the      persons were  to  doe  survived  by      another, the surviving Member shall      have  the  right  to  enjoy  the  A      Schedule property  in its entirety.      This Deed  of will  shall come into      force only after my lifetime, and I      shall have the  right and authority      to change  or cancel  this Deed  of      Will during my lifetime."      Somasundaram  Pillai   died  in   September  1950.  The legatees Sellathachi  and another  had  come into possession of the  properties. Janaka  Thathachi died in the year 1960. In 1970,  Sellathachi had  appointed a  power  of  attorney- holder  who  had  alienated  the  suit  properties  and  the appellants had  purchased them  under registered  sale deed. The suit  was filed for declaration that the legatees having succeeded to  limited estate under the will, the alienations made by  Sellathachi were  illegal. The  trial Court decreed the suit.  The learned  single Judge  allowed the appeal and dismissed the  suit and in LPA No.161/88 dated July 2, 1992, the Division  Bench of  the High  Court has  set  aside  the decree of  the single  Judge holding  that the  legatees had succeeded to  restricted  estate  under  subsection  (2)  or Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the "Act") and  that, therefore, their rights have not blossomed into absolute estate. Thus  this appeal by special leave.      The question,  therefore, is:  whether Sellathachi, the widow of Somasundaram Pillai, had become the absolute owner, by operation  or Section  14(1) of  the Act?  Recital of the Will clearly  indicates that  the testator  was conscious of the pre-existing  legal position,  namely, he  was under  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

obligation to maintain his wife and also moral obligation to maintain his  cousin’s wife. He stated that "I am duty bound to provide  maintenance for  the aforesaid two persons and I have no  other duty  to be  performed". He  had stated  that after his  lifetime the  two legatees  would be  entitled to take possession  of the  properties and  enjoy the  same  in equal share without any right to alienate and to perform the charities as  per his  last wish.  He also mentioned that if one of the legatees pre-deceases, the other surviving member would have  the right  to enjoy  the properties mentioned in the will.  The right  to maintenance  and a  charge  on  her husband’s properties are pre-existing legal rights available to her      Section 14 of the Act reads thus:      "14(1) Any  property possessed by a      female  Hindu,   whether   acquired      before or after the commencement of      this Act,  shall be  held by her as      full owner  thereof and  not  as  a      limited owner.      Explanation.-In  this  sub-section,      "property"  includes  both  movable      and immovable  property acquired by      a female  Hindu by  inheritance  or      device, or  at a  partition, or  in      lieu of  maintenance of  arrears of      maintenance, or  by gift  from  any      person, whether  a relative or not,      before, at  or after  her marriage,      or by her own skill or exertion, or      by purchase  or by prescription, or      in any  other manner  whatever, and      also any  such property held by her      as  stridharas  immediately  before      the commencement of this Act.      (2)  Nothing   contained  in   sub-      section(1)  shall   apply  to   any      property acquired by way of gift or      under   a   will   or   any   other      instrument or  under  a  decree  or      order of  a civil court or under an      award where  the terms of the gift,      will or  other  instrument  or  the      decree, order  or award prescribe a      restricted    estate     in    such      property."      In Tulasamma  vs. V.Sesha  Reddi [(1977)  3 SCR 261], a Bench of three Judges of this Court had considered the right acquired under the will and held at page 268 thus:      "Whatever be  the kind of property,      movable or immovable, and whichever      be  the  mode  of  acquisition,  it      would be covered by sub-section (1)      of Section  14, the  object of  the      Legislature being  to wipe  out the      disabilities  from  which  a  Hindu      female  suffered   in   regard   to      ownership of property under the old      Sastric   law,   to   abridge   the      stringent    provisions     against      propriety rights  which were  often      regarded   as   evidence   of   her      perpetual tutelage and to recognize      her status  as an  independent  and      absolute owner of property."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

    At page  269, it  was further  held      that:      "Sub-section (2)  must,  therefore,      be read  in  the  context  of  sub-      section (1) so as to leave as large      a scope  for operation  as possible      to sub-section  (1) and so read, it      must be  confined  to  cases  where      property is  acquired by  a  female      Hindu for the first time as a grant      without  any   pre-existing  right,      under  a  gift,  will,  instrument,      decree, order  or award,  the terms      of  which  prescribe  a  restricted      estate in the property."      Thota Sesharathamma  vs. Thota Manikyamma [(1991) 3 SCR 717 =  (1991) 4  SCC 312]  is also  a case  under which  the legatee had  obtained under a will a limited estate known as widow’s estate,  prior to  the Act came into force. When the suit was laid for declaration that she became only a limited owner, this  Court had  considered the  controversy and held thus:      "Devolution of  the property  under      the will  would take  effect  after      the demise  of the testator and the      legatee would  be    bound  by  the      terms  of   gift  over   etc.   The      stranger   legatee    cannot   take      shelter under  subsequent change of      law to   enlarge  the operation  of      restrictive   covenant   to   claim      absolute ownership  in the property      bequeathed to  her. But      socio-      economic amelioration under the Act      engulfs  an  instrument  under  the      sweep of  Section 14(1) thereof; it      extinguishes    the    pre-existing      limited   estate   or   restrictive      condition and  confers absolute and      full  ownership   of  the  property      possessed by  a Hindu  female as on      the date when the Act had come into      force, namely,  June 17,  1956. The      courts are not giving retrospective      operation to  Section 14(1)  or  to      the  instrument.  The  courts  only      would be  applying the  law to  the      facts found as on the date when the      question  arose   to  find  whether      legatee has pre-existing vestige of      title under  law; and the nature of      possession of  the property held by      her and  whether the  legatee would      get the  benefit of  Section 149(1)      of the Act."      In Mangat  Mal vs.Punni Devi [(1995) 6 SCC 88], another Bench of  two Judges  considered the  right acquired  by the female under an award and held that :      "Maintenance,   as   we   see   it,      necessarily   must    encompass   a      provision      for       residence.      Maintenance is  given so  that  the      lady can  live in  the manner, more      or   less,   to   which   she   was      accustomed.    The    concept    of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

    maintenance    must,     therefore,      include  provision   for  food  and      clothing and the like and take into      account the  basic need  of a  roof      over  the   head.   Provision   for      residence may  be  made  either  by      giving a  lump  sum  in  money,  or      property in  lieu thereof.  It  may      also be  made by providing, for the      course  of   the  lady’s   life,  a      residence  and   money  for   other      necessary    expenditure.     Where      provision is  made in  this manner,      by  giving   a  life   interest  in      property  for   the   purposes   of      residence, that  provision is  made      in lieu  of a  preexisting right to      maintenance  and   the  Hindu  lady      acquires far  more than the vestige      of title which is deemed sufficient      to attract Section 14(1).      Under the award provision was made,      in lieu of Sukh Devi’s pre-existing      right to  maintenance, of money and      interest of   life  in the  Bidasar      property.  Sukh   Devi,  therefore,      acquired limited  ownership  rights      in   the    Bidasar   property   in      recognition  of   her  pre-existing      right  to   maintenance.  Upon  the      coming into  force of  the Act, the      limited rights     acquired by Sukh      Devi in  1934 blossomed  into  full      ownership of  the Sidasar property,      and she  became entitled  to   sell      its   ’nohra’.    In   our    view,      therefore, the  High Court  was  in      error in the view that it took.      This Court  thus held  that the  view taken by the High Court   was wrong  in holding  that she  acquired a  limited estate and  sub-section (2) of Section 14 became  applicable to the  right acquired  by her under the award. Accordingly, this Court  had held that her right acquired under the award was in  recognition of her pre existing right to maintenance and that, therefore, it had blossomed into an absolute right under Section  14(1) of the Act.      It is  true, as  rightly contended  by Shri Rangam, the learned counsel  for the  respondent, that  a Bench  of  two Judges of this Court in Gumpha vs. Jaibai [(1994) 2 SCC 511] considered the effect of the will and had held that property acquired under  will does  not  fall under Section 14(1). In that case,  the will  was executed  in the year 1941 and the testator died  in 1958  after the  Act had  come into force. Therefore, this  Court had  held that  she acquired right to maintenance under  the will  as a  restricted estate  and by operation of  Section 30 of the Act read with Section 14(2), she acquired  a limited estate. The learned Judges appear to have construed  the operation  of sub-section (2) of Section 14 in  the light  of the  language mentioned in the Will. It would be  seen that  the Will was executed in the year 1941. As per  pre-existing law  in 1941,  she had  only a right to maintenance. The  learned Judges  proceeded on  the  premise that a  Hindu male’s  power to dispose of his property being absolute, it  includes right to create limited or restricted estate in  favour of a female. By operation of Section 30 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

the Act  the restricted  estate under  the Will  comes under sub-section [2]  of Section  14 as  it is not a device under which  she  acquired  the  property  under  sub-section  [1] thereof. However,  the learned  judges  noted  that  if  the maintenance was given in recognition of a preexisting right, such an acquisition of property was taken out of sub-section [2] to  promote the  object of  Section 14.  The  manner  of acquisition under  sub-section [1] includes inheritance etc. specifically  mentioned   in  subsection   [1]  before   the commencement of the Act. Therefore, it was held that it does not include  acquisition by  will. The  construction of sub- sections [2] and [1] being consistent with Section 30 of the Act led  to that  conclusion. in  the view  of  the  learned Judges, that  the words  "in lieu  of" or  "arrears of"  for maintenance appeared to be significant.      In Seth  Badri Prasad  v. Srimati  Kanso Devi [(1969) 2 SCC 586] the question of the construction of sub-section [2] and sub-section  [1] of  Section 14  had come  up  before  a three-Judge Bench of this Court. The facts therein were that the respondent  got certain  properties under  an award as a widow’s estate.  Suit was filed by the appellant to restrain respondent from  committing acts  of waste or alienating the properties on  the ground that she was only limited owner of the property.  The respondent  contended that  under Section 14 [1] she became full owner of the property which was found favour with the courts below. In interpreting Section 14 [1] and [2], this Court held that the words "acquired" and "possessed" have been used in their widest connotation. Possession must be constructive or actual or  in any form recognized by law. In the language of Explanation the  word "acquired"  must  also  be  given  the widest possible meaning. Sub-section [2] of Section 14 would come into  operation only  if  acquisition  in  any  of  the matters indicated therein does not come under Section 14 [1] and was  made for  the first  time, without  there being any pre-existing right  in the Hindu female who is in possession of  the  property.  It  was  held  that  since  she  was  in possession of  the property as a widow’s estate, her limited right was  enlarged into  an absolute right under Section 14 [1] .      In Mangal  Singh &  Ors.  v.  Shrimati  Rattno  &  Anr. [(1967)  3  SCR  454],  another  three-Judge  Bench  was  to consider  the  question  whether  a  Hindu  female  who  was dispossessed from  the property in her possession before the Act had  come into  force became  an  absolute  owner  under Section 14  [1]. This  Court held  that the words "possessed by" instead of the expression "in possession  of" in Section 14 [1] was intended to enlarge the meaning of the expression possession by"  to cover  cases of "possession in law". Even though the  Hindu female  was not  in  actual,  physical  or constructive possession  of  the  property  Section  14  [1] stands attracted.      It is  seen that  if after  the Constitution  came into force the  right to equality and dignity of person enshrined in the  Preamble of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles  which are a Trinity intended to remove discrimination or  disability  on  grounds  only  of  social status or  gender, removed the pre-existing impediments that stood in  the way  of  female  or  weaker  segments  or  the society. In  S.R. Bommai  v. Union  of India [(1995) 1 SCC ] this Court  held that  the Preamble  is part  of  the  basic structure of  the Constitution.  Handicaps should be removed only under  rule of  law to  enliven the Trinity of justices equality and  liberty with  dignity  of  person.  The  basic structure permeates  equality to status and opportunity. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

personal  laws   conferring  inferior  status  on  women  is anathema to equality. Personal laws are derived not from the Constitution but  from the  religious scriptures.  The  laws thus derived  must be  consistent with the Constitution lest they  became   void  under   Article  13  if  they  violated fundamental rights.  Right  to  equality  is  a  fundamental right. Parliament,  therefore, has  enacted  Section  14  to remove  pre-existing  disabilities  fastened  on  the  Hindu female limiting her right to property without full ownership thereof. The  discrimination is  sought to  be  remedied  by Section 14  [1] enlarging  the scope  of acquisition  of the property by a Hindu female appending an explanation with it.      The General  Assembly of  the United  Nations adopted a declaration on  December 4,  1986 on "The Development of the Right to Development" to which India played a crusading role for  its  adoption  and  ratified  the  same.  Its  preamble cognises that  all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible  and   interdependent.  All  Nation  States  are concerned  at   the  existence   of  serious   obstacles  to development and complete fulfillment of human beings, denial of civil,  political, economic,  social and cultural rights. In order  to promote  development, equal attention should be given to  the implementation,  promotion and  protection  of civil, political, economic, social and political rights.      Article  1(1)   assures   right   to   development   an inalienable human right, by virtue of which every person and all people  are entitled  to participate  in, contribute to, and  enjoy   economic,  social,   cultural  and    political development  in  which  all  human  rights  and  fundamental freedoms can  be fully  realized. Article 6(1) obligates the state to  observance of  all human  rights  and  fundamental freedoms for all without any discrimination as to race, sex, language  or   religion.  Sub-Article   (2)   enjoins   that ......equal attention  and urgent  consideration  should  be given to  implement,  promotion  and  protection  of  civil, political,  economic,  social  and  political  rights.  Sub- article (3) thereof enjoins that estate should take steps to eliminate obstacle to development, resulting from failure to observe civil  and political  rights as  well  as  economic, social and  economic rights.  Article 8  castes duty  on the State to  undertake,........... necessary  measures  for  he realization of  right to development and ensure, inter alia, equality of  opportunity for  all in  their access  to basic resources........... and  distribution of income". Effective measures should  be undertaken  to ensure that women have an active role in the development process. Appropriate economic and social  reforms should  be carried  out with  a view  to eradicate all social injustice.      Human Rights  are derived  from the  dignity and  worth inherent in  the human  person. Human Rights and fundamental freedom have been reiterated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Democracy, development  and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are inter-dependent and have mutual reinforcement.  The human rights for woman, including girl  child   are,  therefore,   inalienable,  integral  and indivisible  part   of  universal  human  rights.  The  full development of  personality  and  fundamental  freedoms  and equal participation  by women in political, social, economic and cultural life are concomitants for national development, social and family stability and growth, culturally, socially and economically.  All forms of discrimination on grounds of gender  is  violative  of  fundamental  freedoms  and  human rights.      Vienna declaration  on the  elimination of all forms of discrimination against  women for short "CEDAW" was ratified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

by the  U.N.O. on December 18, 1979. The Government of India who was  an active  participant to CEDAW ratified it on June 19, 1993  and acceded  to  CEDAW  on  August  8,  1993  with reservation on  Articles 5(e), 16(1), 16(2) and 29 of CEDAW. The Preamble of CEDAW reiterates that discrimination against women,   violates the  principles of  equality of rights and respect  for   human  dignity;   is  an   obstacle  to   the participation on  equal terms  with men  in  the  political, social, economic and cultural life of their country; hampers the growth  of the  personality from  society and family and makes  more   difficult  for   the   full   development   of potentialities of  women in  the service  of their countries and  of   humanity  Poverty   of  women   is   a   handicap. Establishment of  new international  economic order based on equality and  justice will  contribute significantly towards the promotion of equality between men and women etc. Article 1  defines   discrimination  against   women  to  mean  many distinctions exclusion  or restriction  made on the basis of sex  which  has  the  effect  or  purpose  on  impairing  or nullifying the  recognized enjoyment  or exercise  by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men  and women  all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the  political, economic,  social, cultural, civil or any other field.  Article 2(b)  enjoins the  State parties while condemning discrimination  against women in all its forms to pursue by  appropriate means  without delay,  elimination of discrimination  against   women  by   adopting  "appropriate legislative and  other measures  including  sanctions  where appropriate, prohibiting all discriminations against women." To take  all appropriate  measures including legislation, to modify or  abolish existing  laws, regulations,  customs and practices which  constitute  discrimination  against  women. Clause C enjoins to ensure legal protection of the rights of women on  equal basis  with men through constituted national tribunals and  other public  institutions against any act of discrimination to  provide effective  protection  to  women. Article 3  enjoins state  parties that it shall take, in all fields, in  particular, in  the political,  social, economic and cultural  fields,  all  appropriate  measures  including legislation to  ensure full  development and  advancement of women for  the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of  human rights  and fundamental  freedoms on the basis of  equality with  men. Article  13 states  that  "the state  parties   shall  take  all  appropriate  measures  to eliminate discrimination  against women  in other  areas  of economic and  social life  in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of  men and  women", in  particular................ Article 14  laid emphasis to eliminate discrimination on the problems faced  by rural  women so as to enable them to play "in the  economic survival of their families including their work in  the non-monetized  sectors of the economy and shall take.... all appropriate measures....". Participation in and benefit from  rural development  and, in  particular,  shall ensure to  such  women  the  right  to  participate  in  the development  programme   to   organize   self   groups   and cooperatives   to    obtain   equal   access   to   economic opportunities through  employment  or  self-employment  etc. Article 15(2)  enjoins to  accord to  women in equality with men  before   the  law,   in   particular,   to   administer property.......      The Parliament made the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section  2(b) defines  human rights  means "the rights relating to  life, liberty,  equality  and  dignity  of  the individual guaranteed  by the  Constitution, embodied in the international  conventions  and  enforceable  by  courts  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

India. Thereby  the principles  embodied in  CEDAW  and  the concomitant right  to development  became integral  parts of the Indian  Constitution and the Human Rights Act and became enforceable. Section  12 of  Protection of  Human Rights Act charges the  commission with  duty for proper implementation as well  as prevention  of violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms.      Article 5(a)  of CEDAW to which the Government of India expressed reservation  does not stand in its way and in fact Article 2(f)  denudes its  effect and  enjoin  to  implement Article 2(f)  read  with  its  obligation  undertaken  under Articles 3,  14 and  15 of the Convention vis-a-vis Articles 1, 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention of Right to Development. The directive principles and fundamental rights, though provided the  matrix   for  development   of  human  personality  and elimination  of   discrimination,  these   conventions   add urgently and  teeth for  immediate  implementation.  It  is, therefore, imperative  of the  State to eliminate obstacles, prohibit all  gender based  discriminations as  mandated  by Articles  14  and  15  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  By operation of  Article 2(f)  and other  related  articles  of CEDAW,  the  State  should  take  all  appropriate  measures including legislation  to modify  or  abolish  gender  based discrimination in  the existing  laws, regulations,  customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.      Article 15(3)  of the  Constitution of India positively protects  such   Acts  or   actions.  Article   21  of   the Constitution of India reinforces "fright to life". Equality, dignity of  person and  right to  development  are  inherent rights in  every human  being. Life  in its expanded horizon includes all  that give meaning to a person’s life including culture, heritage and tradition with dignity of person. The fulfillment of that heritage in full measure would encompass the right  to life. For its meaningfulness and purpose every woman  is   entitled  to   elimination  of   obstacles   and discrimination based  on gender for human development, women are  entitled   to  enjoy  economic,  social,  cultural  and political rights without discrimination and on footing of equality. Equally in order to effectuate fundamental duty to develop  scientific  temper,  humanism  and  the  spirit  of enquiry and to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and  collective activities as enjoined in Article 51A(h) and  (J) of the Constitution of India, facilities and opportunities not  only are to be provided for, but also all forms of  gender based  discrimination should be eliminated. It is  a mandate  to the State to do these acts. Property is one of the important endowments or natural assets to accord opportunity,  source   to   develop   personality,   to   be independent, right  to equal  status and  dignity of person. Therefore, the State should create conditions and facilities conducive  for  women  to  realize  the  right  to  economic development including social and cultural rights.      Bharat Ratna  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated, on the floor of the Constituent Assembly that in future both the legislature and the  executive should  not pay  mere lip  service to the directive principles  but they should be made the bastion of all  executive   and  legislative  action.  Legislative  and executive actions must be conformable to and effectuation of the fundamental  rights  guaranteed  in  Part  III  and  the directive principles  enshrined in  part IV and the Preamble of  the  Constitution  who  constitutes  conscience  of  the Constitution. Covenants of the United Nation add impetus and urgency   to    eliminate   gender   based   obstacles   and discrimination.  Legislative   action  should   be   devised suitably to  constallate economic  empowerment of  women  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

socio-economic  restructure   for  establishing  egalitarian social order.  Law is an instrument of social change as well as the  defender for  social change.  Article 2(e)  of CEDAW enjoins that this Court to breath life into the dry bones of the  Constitution,   international   convictions   and   the Protection of Human Rights Act and the Act to prevent gender based  discrimination   and  to  effectuate  right  to  life including  empowerment  of  economic,  social  and  cultural rights to women.      As per  the U.N. Report 1980 "woman constitute half the world population,  perform nearly  two thirds of work hours, receive one  tenth of  the world’s  income and own less than one hundred  per cent  of world’s  property".  Half  of  the Indian population  too are  women. Women  have  always  been discriminated  and   have   suffered   and   are   suffering discriminated in silence. Self sacrifice and self denial are their  nobility   and  fortitude  and  yet  they  have  been subjected to  all  inequities,  indignities  inequality  and discrimination.  Articles   13,  14,   15  and   16  of  the Constitution of  India and  other related  articles prohibit discrimination on  the ground  of sex.  Social and  economic democracy  is  the  cornerstone  for  success  of  political democracy.      In Mrs.  Valsamma Paul  v. Cochin University & Ors. [JT 1996 (1) SC 57] this Court has held thus:      "Human rights  are derived from the      dignity and  worth inherent  in the      human  person.   Human  rights  and      fundamental  freedoms   have   been      reiterated   in    the    Universal      Declaration   of    Human   Rights.      Democracy, development  and respect      for human  rights  and  fundamental      freedoms  are  inter-dependent  and      have  mutual   reinforcement.   The      human rights  for women,  including      girl    child    are,    therefore,      inalienable,      integral      and      indivisible part of universal human      rights.  The  full  development  of      personality     and     fundamental      freedoms and equal participation by      women   in    political,    social,      economic  and   cultural  life  are      concomitants      for      national      development,  social   and   family      stability   and    growth-cultural,      social and economical. All forms of      discrimination on grounds of gender      is   violative    of    fundamental      freedoms    and    human    rights.      Convention for  Elimination of  all      forms  of   Discrimination  Against      Women  (for   short,  "CEDAW")  was      ratified by  the U.N.O. on December      18,  1979  and  the  Government  of      India had  ratified  as  an  active      participant  on   June   19,   1993      acceded  to  CEDAW  and  reiterated      that discrimination  against  women      violates the principles of equality      of rights  and  respect  for  human      dignity and  it is  an obstacle  to      the participation  on  equal  terms      with men  in the political, social,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

    economic and cultural life of their      country; it  hampers the  growth of      the personality  from  society  and      family, making  more difficult  for      the     full     development     of      potentialities  of   women  in  the      service of the respective countries      and of humanity.           Establishment      of      new      international economic  order based      on  equality   and   justice   will      contribute  significantly   towards      the promotion  of equality  between      men  and   women  etc.   Article  1      defines   "discrimination   against      women" to  mean  "any  distinction,      exclusion or  restriction  made  on      the basis  of  sex  which  has  the      effect or  purpose of  impairing or      nullifying the recognized enjoyment      or exercise  by women, irrespective      of their  marital  status,  on  the      basis of equality of men and women,      all human  rights  and  fundamental      freedoms    in    the    political,      economic, social,  cultural,  civil      or any  other field."  Article 2(b)      enjoins  upon  the  State  parties,      while   condemning   discrimination      against women  in all its forms, to      pursue,   by   appropriate   means,      without   delay,   elimination   of      discrimination  against   women  by      adopting  "appropriate  legislative      and   other    measures   including      sanctions    where     appropriate,      prohibiting   all   discriminations      against   women;    to   take   all      appropriate   measures    including      legislation, to  modify or  abolish      existing laws, regulations, customs      and  practices   which   constitute      discrimination    against    women.      Clause C  enjoins upon the State to      ensure  legal   protection  of  the      rights of women on equal basis with      men  through  constituted  national      tribunals    and    other    public      institutions  against  any  act  of      discrimination to provide effective      protection  to   women.  Article  3      enjoins upon the State parties that      it shall  take, in  all fields,  in      particular,   in   the   political,      social,   economic   and   cultural      fields,  all  appropriate  measures      including  legislation   to  ensure      full development and advancement of      women   for    the    purpose    of      guaranteeing them  the exercise and      enjoyment  of   human  rights   and      fundamental freedoms  on the  basis      of equality  with men.  Article  13      states  that   "the  State  parties      shall take all appropriate measures

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

    to eliminate discrimination against      women in  other areas  of  economic      and social life in order to ensure,      on a  basis of  equality of men and      women".           The Parliament has enacted the      Protection  of  Human  Rights  Act,      1993. Section  2(b) defines  "human      rights"   to   mean   "the   rights      relating to life, liberty, equality      and  dignity   of  the   individual      guaranteed  by   the  Constitution,      embodied   in   the   international      conventions  and   enforceable   by      courts  in   India".  Thereby,  the      principles embodied  in  CEDAW  and      the    concomitant     right     to      development became integral part of      the Constitution  of India  and the      Human   Rights   Act   and   became      enforceable.  Section   12  of  the      Protection  of   Human  Rights  Act      charges the  commission  with  duty      for proper  implementation as  well      as prevention  of violation  of the      human   rights    and   fundamental      freedoms.           Though the Government of India      kept its reservations on Articles 5      [e], 16  [1],  16  [2]  and  29  of      CIDAW, they bear little consequence      in view  of the  fundamental rights      in  Article  15  (1)  and  (3)  and      Article  21   and   the   directive      principles of the Constitution.       It is true that Section 30 of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Act relating to the execution of the wills need to be given full effect and the right to disposition of a Hindu  male derives full measure thereunder. But the right to equality  removing handicaps and discrimination against a Hindu female  by reason  of operation of existing law should be in conformity with the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution and  the personal  law  also  needs  to  be  in conformity  with   the   Constitutional   goal.   Harmonious interpretation, therefore,  is required  to  be  adopted  in giving effect to the relevant provisions consistent with the  constitutional animation  to  remove  gender-based discrimination  in  matters  of  marriage,  succession  etc. Cognizant to these constitutional goals, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Adoption  and Maintenance  Act, Hindu  Succession  Act etc. have  been brought  on statute removing the impediments which stood  in the way under the Sastric law. Explanation I to Section 14 [1] gives wide amplitude to the acquisition of property in  the widest terms. It is merely illustrative and not exhaustive.  The only  condition  precedent  is  whether Hindu female has a pre-existing right under the personal law or any  other law  to hold  the property  or  the  right  to property. Any  instrument, document, device etc. under which Hindu female  came to  possess the  property  -  movable  or immovable - in recognition of her pre-existing right, though such  instrument,  document  or  device  is  worded  with  a restrictive  estate,  which  received  the  colour  of  pre- existing restrictive  estate possession  by a  Hindu female. the operation  of sub-section  [1] of  Section 14  read with Explanation I,   remove  the fetters  and the  limited right

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

blossoms into an absolute right.      As held  by this  Court,  if  the  acquisition  of  the property attracts sub-section [1] of Section 14, sub-section [2] does  not come  into play. If the acquisition is for the first times, without any vestige of pre-existing right under the instrument, document or device etc. then sub-section [2] of Section  14 gets  attracted. Sub-section [2] being in the nature of  an exception, it does not engulf and wipe out the operation of  sub-section [1]. Sub-section [2] of Section 14 independently operates  in its  own  sphere.  The  right  to disposition of  property by  a Hindu  under  Section  30  is required to  be understood  in this  perspective and  if any attempt  is  made  to  put  restriction  upon  the  property possessed by a Hindu female under an instrument, document or device, though  executed after  the Act had come into force, it must  be interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  facts  and circumstances in  each case  and to  construe whether  Hindu female acquired  or possessed the property in recognition of her pre-existing  right or she gets the rights for the first time under  the  instrument  without  any  vestige  of  pre- existing right.  If the  answer is  in  the  positive,  sub- section [1]  of Section  14 gets  attracted. Thus construed, both subsections  [1] and  [2] of  Section 14  will be given their full play without rendering either as otios or aids as means of avoidance.      In Gumpha’s  case [supral  though the will was executed in 1941 and the executor died in 1958 after the Act had come into  force,  the  concept  of  limited  right  in  lieu  of maintenance was  very much  in the mind of the executor when will was executed in 1941 but after the Act came into force, the will  became operative.  The restrictive  covenant would have enlarged  it into an absolute estate; but unfortunately the Bench  had put a restrictive interpretation which in our considered view does not appear to be sound in law.      The legatee  Sellathachi had right to maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act when the property was given to her for maintenance. It must be in lieu of her pre- existing right  to maintenance  and the property given under the will, therefore, must be construed to have been acquired by the  legatee under  the will  in lieu  of  her  right  to maintenance. That  right to  maintenance to  a Hindu  female received statutory  recognition under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance  Act,   1956.  She   is  entitled   to   realise maintenance from  property of  her husband  and even  in the hands of  strangers except  the bona  purchasers  for  value whether notice  af her  right. She is equally entitled under Section 37  of the  Transfer of  Property Act to have charge created  over   the  property   for   realization   of   her maintenance. On  the demise  of the  testator, she being the class-I heir but for the bequeath, is entitled to succeed as an absolute  owner. In  either of  those circumstances,  the question emerges  whether she acquires a limited right under Section 14(2)  for the  first time  under the  Will. In  the light of  the facts  and circumstances  of the  case and the legal setting, we are of the considered view that she having had under  Sastric  law,  as  envisaged  in  the  Will,  the properties in  recognition  of  her  pre-existing  right  to maintenance, it  is not  a right acquired for the first time under the  instrument will,  but it  is a  reflection of the pre-existing  right   under  the   Sastric  law,  which  was blossomed into an absolute ownership after 1956 under Section  14 [1] of the Act. Under these circumstances, it cannot  be held  that Sellathachi  acquired the  right to maintenance for the first time under the instrument will. The Division  Bench, therefore,  does  not  appear  to  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

approached the  problem in  the correct perspective. In view of the settled legal position right from Tulasamma’s case [supra] the  right acquired under the Will is in recognition of the  pre-existing right  to maintenance  known under  the Sastric law and was transformed into an absolute right under Section  14(1) wiped  out the restrictive estate given under the  Sastric law  and Sellathachi as absolute owner of the property. The Division bench of the High Court, therefore, was  not correct  in holding that Sellathachi has acquired only  a limited  estate under  the Will and Section 14(2) attracts to the restrictive covenants contained in the will limiting  her right  to maintenance  for life time and, thereafter, the right to enjoy the income from the lands and on her  demise, the  income should  go  to  the  temples  as mentioned in the will is not correct in law.      Shri Rangam  then contended  that when the testator has thought of  providing only  maintenance, to  the two widows, the properties  being more  than 10  acres, the  maintenance must be  only proportionate to the needs of the widow and to that extent the widow acquires an absolute right but not the entire property.  We find no force in that contention. It is to be  seen that under the pre-existing law, she is entitled to remain in possession of the whole estate known as widow’s estate and  after the  Act has  come into force that widow’s estate was blossomed into an absolute estate by operation of Section 14(1)  Even in  the Will  Ex-A1, no such restrictive covenant  was  engrafted  giving  reasonable  proportion  of income consistent with her needs for maintenance. On the other hand,  the express covenant is that, he recognized her right to maintenance and in lieu of the maintenance property was given  to her  for her  maintenance during her lifetime. That is  the pre-existing  right as  per then  existing law. After the  Act has  come into  force, the limited estate has blossomed into  an absolute  estate. Therefore, the doctrine of proportionality  of maintenance  is  not  applicable  and cannot be extended.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench stands set aside and that of the single Judge stands upheld.  Resultantly, the  suit stands  dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.